User talk:Angusmclellan/Archive 1

This is an archive of former discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

up to 30 March 2006

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Gareth Hughes 21:06, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Personal sandbox

Hi there, just thought I'd let you know that your talk page should probably be reserved for comments. You might want to move your (rather fine) work on History of Scotland to a subpage, like a Sandbox. Click here to make one. Thanks, Alphax ^τεχ 10:38, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Fortriu

Your recent edit regarding Fortriu was a bad edit. Not only has it "recently been argued" it has been effectively proven. You'll have to take my word for it, because you don't know what you are talking about just now; I'd suggest emailing around, or what not. I've reproduced enough of the arguments to make a southern identification absurd. Reinserting Strathearn and Menteith is silly in any case, because even if it did correspond to S. Pictland, it's unlikely to follow the piffle in de Situ Albanie. - Calgacus 16:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Clearly I'm being incredibly stupid today. I'd like to blame it on overindulgence but that would be a lie. Biorhythms maybe ? Humble apologies. Angus McLellan 17:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Dalriada and Pictavia

Angus, a whole bunch of Pictish rulers are, in their titles, "of Dalriada". This is pretty spurious. They should all be moved to "of the Picts". Do you wish to help me move these to their proper locations? - Calgacus 18:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I can do them all if you like. That's maybe easier. I have plenty time on my hands at the moment. Angus McLellan 18:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool stuff. You agree that it's spurious, right? One problem you may encounter is that the "of the Picts" titles may be redirects, so you may have to change the names or something. I dunno; keep me posted if you have any problems.

Agree 100%. Just tried moving Constantine and indeed it doesn't like it as the page already exists as a redirect. That'll be Caustantín of the Picts then. Angus McLellan 18:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why that form (i.e. Caustantín)? Oh yeah, something else is that, despite being destroyed by the Picts, Dalriada is coming first in all these succession boxes. Dunno if that bothers you as me. - Calgacus 19:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It was a toss up between one-t and two-ts. Two-ts appears first in Broun's entry on him in Lynch's companion. Well, the Dalriada stuff is all over the place. It would be a big job fixing it. What I am thinking (I dunno if you're thinking the same, I'm not Michael Howard) is that it might be as well to have a "kings of the Picts and Fortriu" article (and a "kings of Dalriada" one) and stick everything in there. Well, it's an idea anyway. If you think one-t is more correct, then I will change it. Drust of Dalriada has the same issue with a redirect page of the same name. I think that needs a request to move it (either that or I'll copy & paste it, which is not the done thing, but who cares ? I know which is more likely). Most of those "lists of this" and "lists of that" are a complete waste of time.

LOL. OK. The forms vary anyways, so it doesn't really matter. Fraser has Custantín. You are correct that the Dalriada stuff is all over the place. This is a difficult area, as I'm sure you appreciate, so most editors don't really know how to handle the information; the emerging scholarly consensus that Dalriada was destroyed in the 8th century has not even begun to creep into popular knowledge. Numbering the Pictish kings is in itself problematic. Drust I think is the Pictish form (and indeed a Pictish name), although I wouldn't want to number him (but this is being done in any case). One of the problems with naming is which kings do you give Gaelic names, and when Pictish names, since it is silly to take Cináed mac Ailpín's reign as a breaking point. I agree, btw, that most of these lists of are more misleading than helpful; but sadly, inevitable on a popular editing platform like wiki. The best we can do is insert long commentaries, which is very time consuming, and they probably wouldn't be read in any case. - Calgacus 20:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed Drust of the Picts to Drust IX of the Picts; I know you're probably systematizing this in your head, so I hope I didn't screw anything up. If I did, it's easy enough to revert back. It just seemed a little odd to have this Drust in particular as merely Drust of the Picts. - Calgacus 20:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Shit, I just noticed that the List of Pictish Kings goes from Drest VII to Drust IX (same names, Scottish and Pictish). Is this explainable, or is it a mistake. - Calgacus 20:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Always did. After checking, the prob is that there are two Drest VI's, Drest f. Donnel in the 660s and Drest f. Talorgan in the 720s. I'll fix that later. Now I'm off to watch Life on Mars on BBC1. It reminds me of just how crap the 1970s were. Angus McLellan 21:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You can work on all the pages with the information you have. My sources are probably the most shotty of them all. I've been using bits of information from The Annals of the Four Masters mixed with stuff from The Pictish Chronicle and the links located therein (pretty good site). I generally work on making pages look decent and cleaning up the succession boxes at the bottom (since I created the current succession box format). When I run across good (and historic, if not reliable) information at a website, I often will integrate it in. I also clean up the name field so that the alternate spellings are available in parenthesis. Finally, I try to standardize the dates of reigns so that they do not look like

"Bredei VIII of the Picts, or Bob, or Mike, king of the Picts (r. 728-891]]) and the son of Steve."

Yeah, that is not a nice looking form. I generally standardize it to something like

"Bredei VIII (Scottish: Brude mac Stephen) was king of the Picts from 728 until 891. He was the son and successor of Stephen II of the Picts."

See the difference?

So in regard to your requests, I often forget to source my information. It is from historic sources, that much I can tell you, but expand on it or remove it all you want. Some people have been going through and thrashing my Dalriada pages anyway since apparently there is controvery over if the kingdom ever existed, so I am rather tired of working on stuff that people just erase or remove. Regardless, have fun and I hope you find good infomation. I can try to help if you need it. Cheer!
–Whaleyland 20:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ! That was a quick reply (feel free to trash this conversation when done). I believe that the Annals of Ulster and of Tigernach are *usually* the most useful on Scotland, and they seem to have fewer dating problems than the Four Masters (which goes to pot in places, certainly c730, but is fine in others). The Annals of Innisfallen haven't been a goldmine, but the Annals of Clonmacnoise have been handy sometimes, although the fact that they're in the ancient format Cornell and whoever adopted for the Making of America project aeons ago does make them harder to use than text. It must be wonderful to just look up an edited book, like Skene or Anderson, rather than trawling through the online versions.

There's no controversy over the existence of Dál Riada. There are over its origins, its fate, its connections to Ireland, the value and meaning of the Senchus, the extent to which the Annals present a Cenél nGabráin bias, and more besides. There are good grounds to think that kings have been added and subtracted in the 8th and 9th centuries, but Aedan mac Gabráin and Domnall Brecc were as real as can be. Compared to many other such lists, the list of kings of Dál Riada is a paragon of accuracy of which you should be proud ! Angus McLellan 20:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Great Work

For your work on Óengus I of the Picts, I , Calgacus, hereby award you Epic Barnstar. Congratulations! (KC)

Keep up the good work. - Calgacus 19:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Duan Albanach

Thanks for opening Duan Albanach. I'm not sure that tag should be there; it's not finished, but it ain't bad quality. BTW, I recommend you read Thomas Clancy's “Scotland, the ‘Nennian’ recension of the Historia Brittonum, and the Lebor Bretnach”, in Simon Taylor (ed.) Kings, Clerics and Chronicles in Scotland, 500-1297, (Dublin/Portland, 2000), pp. 87-107. The article essentially proves that the Lebor Bretnach was written in Scotland, probably at Abernethy. If it's of interest to you, it contains a relatively "un-Gaelicized" Pictish king-list that goes all the way up to the reign of Máel Coluim III. These king lists contain a kind of charter granted by the Pictish king Nechtan to the monastery - it's just an interesting point; it's maybe why the monastery at Abernethy preserved the list. Have a good one. - Calgacus 00:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll read it tomorrow ! Angus McLellan 01:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Celtic/Pictish/Alternate Names

Please do not leave comments here. In order to continue discussion in a public forum, I suggest that any additional comments be added here at WP:SCOWNB. Thanks ! Angus McLellan 19:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Angus McClellan, we seem to be some of the more prominent editors of early Scottish pages so we should decide something. What name should be used throughout pages where the Celtic version of the name varies with the English or more modern version. Cínaed obviously is the person I concern most recently, although others throughout (Donalds/Domnalls) also cause problems. I believe that the name should reflect the name of the article, in which case we should rename Kenneth I of Scotlands page to something more specific. Also, who was the authority that established Kenneth as the first king of all Alba? It may be smart to change his name to something like Cinead I of Dalriada or Cinead I of the Picts. On that note, should the questionable kings of Dalriada be called such, or should we beging using a different locational name (ie. of the Scots). These problems should probably be resolved through agreement or others will revert the names throughout also. Always good working and talking with you, Angus. Peace with you.
–Whaleyland 22:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, I honestly do not know. From a purely selfish POV (i.e. I have a bog standard QWERTY keyboard), it's not a great idea to have accents in titles. I would certainly like some other opinions, from User:Calgacus, User:An Siarach, User:Derek Ross and User:Mais oui! at least. I appreciate there are arguments about name space consistency, and I do think those have to be taken into account. Not that they are everywhere as we'll see. Given that the page name appears in big friendly letters, we clearly need to have a nod and wink in that direction. OTOH, we could easily link the namespace standard page to a non-namespace standard one, i.e. Kenneth I of Scotland redirects to Cínead mac Ailpín, Aedan of Dalriada redirects to Áedan mac Gabhraín (or whatever precise orthographic standard we should happen to adopt). Redirects, says the WP techy stuff, are cheap, don't stint on them. But standards are also cheap, which is why everyone has their own. Russian rulers simply don't follow any standard. Andrei Bogolyubsky, Vsevolod III, but it redirects to Vsevolod the Big Nest (duh !), Ivan I of Russia (of Russia ? Hmmm) with Ivan Kalita as a redirect. What a mess ! Obviously we don't want to end up like that. Can I move this discussion to WP:SCOWNB, or Talk:Kingdom of Scotland, or some other general forum ? Please let me know ! Angus McLellan 22:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Using English names for these guys is silly, and goes against scholarly trends. Giving English names implies they are English (this is actually a real effect), and you'll see if you go through Polish or Lithuanian rulers native names are given. Moreover, the only way to gain consistency is by using the contemporary names, because many medieval Gaelic names have no anglicization. Anglicized naming also fulfils Lowest common denominator; K did not exist in pre-Norman insular languages for instance. Why not, for instance, call Aed of Scotland Hugh of Scotland (looks stupid doesn't it)? Máel Coluim to Malcolm - fair enough, what do you do with Máel Snechtai or Máel Brigte, names which have no anglicization. So you'll have the word Máel written twice on the same page in different forms. Most silly. It also implies that Máel Coluim was not Gaelic, but Máel Snechtai/Máel Brigte was; false and misleading. I have a consistent naming policy which wikipedia ought to adopt, one followed by Scottish historians - generally outlined here: [1]. As a rule, when I employ medieval Gaelic names, I omit lenition for people born before 1200, and retain it for people born after 1200; i.e. Domnall but, after 1200, Domhnall. Generally, As get inserted after Es in certain names, Ferchar but Fearchar, Fergus but Fearghus; áe becomes ao (i.e. Máel Coluim, but Maol Choluim/Maol Chaluim). - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 23:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the general point, but being a sad techie, the nomenclature and name space aspects do interest me a little. The article on Donnchad ua Máel Coluim does now, and forever will, say Duncan I of Scotland at the top. Should it ? Or should it be titled Donnchad ua Máel Coluim, and mention Duncan I on the page ? At which point should we switch to king names in English (after Domnall Bán mac Donnchada I suppose) ? We could keep those who want a consistent naming system - X Y of Z - happy with pages Duncan I of Scotland, Kenneth I of Scotland and the rest, but redirect all of those pages where we would like to have a different name to a another page, called, e.g. Donnchad ua Máel Coluim, Cínaed mac Ailpín. There are a few cases where we would need to disambiguate two people with identical name and patronym. Óengus mac Fergusa, Drest son of Talorgan and maybe Talorgan son of Drest come to mind, and I think only the first is absolutely necessary. We can avoid the question of whether to use mac or map for Pictish kings by making most of them "son of" and leaving map/mac for the reasonably clear cut cases. There must be few kings of the Picts, Scots, or Dál Riada, Mormaers, or other significant personalities, who would have an article about them and who do not have a patronym, matronym or some sort of eponym which would uniquely distinguish them. I am more than willing to do the donkey work if there is a consensus for change, and if there is a consensus on the standard form of the names to be adopted. I regularly have nothing to do for five or ten minutes in the office, which is enough to do this sort of stuff, but not enough to do anything more useful. Angus McLellan 23:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are guides for wikipedia naming of rulers that the "X of Country" should generally be the formula; and titles for kings, I do think, should follow that formula. If you attempted to move "Malcolm II of Scotland" to "Máel Coluim II of Scotland", you'd get opposition. In general, the kings of Scotland are usually best known by their English names. But this doesn't mean we should actively anglicize Gaelic names. Only the kings and one or two other folk are famous enough in the English-speaking world to be referred to more commonly by their Anglicized names, but otherwise there's no excuse for using anglicizations. Moreover, I don't see why the name in the title should dictate the name in the text (e.g. Henry_II_of_France). Lastly, as almost every active historian in the area uses now uses Gaelic forms for Gaelic names, using these forms could deter users who don't have a clue what they're talking about adding garbage to the articles; if wiki editors had done this in the first place, the articles for the early Scottish kings wouldn't be as garbage as they now are. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 23:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I am not suggesting (re)moving them. Those pages would still exist. They would be a redirect is all. That seems to comply with the standard. As I understand it. Not that I did anything as mundane as try to find it. Some anonymous Finnish person today changed loads of references in articles from like this Kenneth III to like this Kenneth III of Scotland (but not just for Scots articles), and changed every reference to the subject (let's say Malcolm II) from like this "Malcolm died in ..." to "Malcolm II died in ...". I suppose we can count ourselves lucky it wasn't changed to "Malcolm II of Scotland died in ...". It may be that the anonymous editor thought they were doing a good deed. Angus McLellan 00:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There are two considerations as i see it. Firstly this is the English language wikipedia and must cater for whichever form of the name has priority in that language. Secondly the entire purpose of wikipedia and encyclopedias generally is to provide information, to educate and this requires that we use the historically/linguistically/ethnically correct forms of names. I dont see what could possibly be objectionable about having the anglicized form of a name acting as a redirect ( Such as Donald ) to the correct and accurate native version of the name - Domnall. The points raised by Calgacus regarding the perception, and possible misconception, of Rulers/People is very valid imo. We should be wary of pandering to convenience and LCD. Disqualifying a fact due to general ignorance of it seems a very strange thing to do in what acts as a source of information and reference. This is especially pertinent with regard to Scotland which already suffers a phenomenal level of misunderstanding, misconception and outright ignorance regarding the history of the nation and maintaining this via the deliberate anglicization of the names of Scottish monarchs from their correct, native Scottish, forms seems to me to go entirely against the principle of the project and does nothing but propagate and encourage continued ignorance and misunderstanding.An Siarach

I concur. The point of this encyclopedia is to educate individuals. Most Scottish/Pictish kings did not use the names they have on this website ever in their lifetime. True many of the latter ones (after Kenneth) have been anglicised, but I think they should be reverted to their actual names until the kings began using English versions of the names themselves. Malcolm...pah! He deserves his real name as the page's title. But we should make sure all monarchs on all wikipedia pages follow a standard form (ie _______ of _______) because surnames are just dumb to have in their title.
–Whaleyland 09:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is an awful lot of common sense and intelligent thought being voiced here. It is a bit of a shame that this discussion is taking place at a User Talk page though: Angus' suggestion of WP:SCOWNB or Talk:Kingdom of Scotland was wise (yeah, I know that it would encourage lots of "uninformed" comment, but we need some consensus, among the experts but also among us all). I would like to make it very clear that I have no experise whatever in this field. Indeed, as a republican I tend to touch any monarchy/royalty topics with a clothespeg over my nose. I am also (nearly) pig ignorant in Gaelic, although like most Scots I have a very strong family and emotional attachment to the Gaidhealtachd (and know one corner of it like the back of my hand). Intro over, can I just highlight some points:

• "Given that the page name appears in big friendly letters, we clearly need to have a nod and wink in that direction". Indeed we do: in the very first sentence in fact, and consistently throughout the rest of the article.
• "Using English names for these guys is silly". Mmmm... yes and no: this is the English-language edition of Wikipedia. The title should be the one in most common use (and that means common use, not academic use). Kenneth MacAlpin is a no-brainer: it is by a million miles the most common way of referring to that person in English-language contexts.
• "Giving English names implies they are English." Probably, but in that case the article should make crystal clear that they are not. It is a common problem with many anglicised names: it tends to bring the topic artificially closer to the anglophone reader.
• "the only way to gain consistency is by using the contemporary names, because many medieval Gaelic names have no anglicization." Wikipedia is very clear on this point: no original research. If all the sources use one name: do not on any account alter it, in any way.

Well, the one thing in this field you can rely on is inconsistency of names among historians (well, forming patronymics at least). In general, popular works before the mid-90s use anglicized names, scholarly works use authentic names. The latter could never be subject to original research, because they were all produced by their own society, rather than artificial ear-based transliterations into other languages. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 19:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• "the only way to gain consistency". Wikipedia does not really care much about consistency: what it cares about is that each article can stand up on its own two feet, via sound sources. I concur with that approach. "Consistency" requires centralisation and authority: veeerrry un-Wiki attributes.

I don't know who wikipedia is (this looks like what Thomas Nagel would call a "view from nowhere"), but I care about consistency; abstracting a being called "wikipedia" and attributing opinions to it is no reason for bringing wiki articles downmarket. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 19:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• "Well, there are guides for wikipedia naming of rulers that the "X of Country" should generally be the formula" This is a crucial piont. Note that it is only a guideline and NOT official Wikipedia policy, but I consider it to be a very wise guideline indeed.

Me too. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 19:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• "In general, the kings of Scotland are usually best known by their English names". Another absolutely critical point, which pretty much closes the casebook on any potential re-name of monarch articles.

Depends what you read. The island of Britain is best known as England - should we go rename that article then? Gdansk is best known as Danzig, but that is not the article title. In reality, Wiki does not (nor should it) have this policy; the reality is that's there's a bunch of guys who like to anglicize names, and another bunch of guys who like authentic names. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 19:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• "But this doesn't mean we should actively anglicize Gaelic names" No, because that would be Original research.

No it wouldn't. There's nothing on the page about that. If you wanted to rename Aed of Scotland Hugh of Scotland, you could find a source somewhere that would enable it. - 19:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• "Firstly this is the English language wikipedia and must cater for whichever form of the name has priority in that language". Hit the nail on the head there.
• "Secondly the entire purpose of wikipedia and encyclopedias generally is to provide information, to educate and this requires that we use the historically/linguistically/ethnically correct forms of names." Mmmm... not if it is Original research. Wikipedia is not about what is "correct", it is purely about correctly reporting what the respected sources say, EVEN if what the respected sources say is absolute rubbish (from your Point Of View). In other words: Wikipedia is all about lowest common denominator information: that is the quintessential nature of the beast.

Respected sources! Not the Collins guide to Scottish monarchs, or any such dribble! If the author has not published at least one article in a peer reviewed journal for the period he covers, he should not be put along side the experts in authority. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 19:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• "The point of this encyclopedia is to educate individuals". Yes and no: the point is to accurately report what bona fide sources say on topics. Wikipedia itself should say absolutely nothing on any topic whatsoever (in articles). To do so would break NPOV.

Good. So we should be falling in line with the experts, guys like Alex Woolf, Dauvit Broun, James Fraser, Richard Oram, Thomas Clancy, etc, and renaming all the medieval kings who have Gaelic names to their uncorrupted forms. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 19:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• " Most Scottish/Pictish kings did not use the names they have on this website ever in their lifetime" Utterly irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what the commonest modern English-language context usage is.

Right, enough from me. Do you want to leave this discussion here, or can we move it somewhere more public, so that if we do reach consensus, it really is a consensus, and not just a cabal. (You guys really ought to start up a WikiProject: it would give you a legitimate public forum, and carries greater authority among the wider Wikipedia community. Dead easy to start up I understand.--Mais oui! 19:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Pictish revision

In your overhaul of the entry on Picts, you say that Brochs are sometimes popularly associated with the Picts, but these date from earlier in the Iron Age, with construction ending around 100 AD, although brochs may have been used into, and beyond, the Pictish period. I just wanted to point out that several brochs show clear and dateable reuse throughout the "Pictish" period. The broch at Yarrows in Caithness is a good example, where a Pictish settlement grew around the outside of an existing broch (probably a broch tower), which was in itself re-roofed at a lower level and re-inhabited. It is by no means unique, or even unusual, in this regard. Good job on the overhaul, by the way. Lianachan 12:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I wasn't 100% certain, hence the weaselly "may". I'll fix that. If there's anything else, please yell ! Angus McLellan 12:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I know far more about brochs than I do about Picts, so that's prbably all I'll be contributing, sorry! Lianachan 19:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I see you'd appreciate a citation for information of Pictish use of brochs. Ian Armit's Towers In The North: The Brochs Of Scotland, chapter 7, doesn't mention Yarrows - but it does talk about what happened to brochs after their initial eras of use. If you drop the reference to Yarrows, and give that book as a source for Pictish reuse of broch towers you should be sorted. It's ISBN is 0-7524-1932-3 Lianachan 23:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Magnificent ! I found one for crannogs the first place I looked, but I hadn't found one for brochs yet. Thanks again ! Angus McLellan 23:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. You'll just have to take my word for Yarrows, I guess - I could send you my photographs of the broch, showing the "new" internal wall and the wags around the outside if you were particularly interested. Lianachan 00:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a kind offer, but no need. I've been meaning to read Armit's books (Towers and Celtic Scotland) for a while now, but I try to limit the number of books I buy, otherwise I'll need to move to make room for them ! Thanks again. Angus McLellan 00:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

If you can open this, there's some details there actually. You may not be able to, the site I accessed it from requires registration with the Royal Commision for the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Scotland Lianachan 00:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

New WIkiProject

Hey Angus, I took Mais oui!'s advice and opened a wikiproject: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medieval Scotland. See you there. :) ! - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 20:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Scottish people

Angus, I have read over your "alternative" to the Scottish People page and it has some good ideas in it, but I simply don't understand why the Scots can't be considered an ethnic group. I know previously you have compared it to the French but the only reason there is problems with discussion of French ethnicity is because the current French Republican government posesses a relatively unique view in disregarding the existence of ethnicity and "race". I can see that although the Scots have a fairly diverse origin, they are still a relatively homogenous ethnic group with the Gaels-Picts elements being most distinctive either in a cultural, linguistic or ethnic/racial sense. The so called "6 origins" on the current Scottish people article is really exaggerated and doesn't take into account factors such as abosorbtion of the smaller groups (Norse and Britons) into the Gaels-Picts. Although the English influence is very strong linguistically, and to a lesser degree culturally, they (the Northumbrians of Southeast Scotland) were also largely absorbed into the main Gael-Pict population. I just don't see the problem and especially because the indigenous Scots share many of the common features in the definition of an ethnic group. The French also have these elements obviously, but its less documented compared to practically all other peoples because of current French Republican government policy. Obviously I agree that the Scots have a more diverse amalgam of origins compared to their more homogeonous (culturally) neighbours the English, Irish and Welsh and can be a more difficult group to define in ethnic terms. Despite this diversity, it is in my and many others opinions, that Scottish ethnicity is homogenous enough to be considered an ethnic group and can not be compared on the same level as very ambiguous and non-exclusive groups such as Arabs (unless you are speaking of the "true Arabs" of the peninsula), Jews or Malays which sometimes revolve mainly around loose ideas such as language or religion rather than descent and tradition. Sorry for the long post, but I wish to open up some discussion on the topic. 69.157.121.76 23:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. IMS that, to a very large extent, Scottish political parties publicly embrace the concept of civic identity and offer little support for ethnic nationalism. Equally, in a country where immigration is a novelty and emigration very much the historical norm, there has been little need to address any concept of identity as such. It was very easy indeed to say who was Scots when the choices were Scots, Irish or English, as was pretty much the case until the last quarter of the C20th.

I don't have any problem with Scots as an ethnic group in some sense, only with the concept that descent is the main determinant of Scottishness. Ethnic group has been seriously overhauled since last month, and now begins "An ethnic group is a human population whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry (Smith 1986)." I wouldn't argue with that, at least far as the comma. It formerly said "An ethnic group is a culture or subculture whose members are readily distinguishable by outsiders based on traits originating from a common racial, national, linguistic, regional or religious source." I do strongly dispute "readily distinguishable", since that means that an external observer can determine who is, or isn't, Scots. I would argue that only the members of a group, however it may be defined, can determine who is, or isn't, accepted as a member of that group.

Anecdote isn't evidence, but I'll add some anyway. Of the 30-odd people now alive descended from my grandparents - all born, raised and died in Scotland - no more than half are Scottish in any sense other than by partial ancestry. What makes someone born and brought up in Birmingham, to two English born parents, and now living in Canada, a Scottish person ? Angus McLellan 19:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The "english" parents the person was born to in Birmingham, were they from Scotland and of Scottish descent ? If those who have descended from your grandparents have intermixed with other groups than yes they indeed would be "less Scottish" from a descent and ethnic POV. I also agree that yes, the members and descendants of a group are the only ones who should determine who is a member of that group (or possibly several expert anthropologists or researchers in the matter). As for the term "readily distinguishable", it may not be that the external observer can see who is Scots or not, but at least notice the differences between Scots and other peoples, whether based on physical/"racial", cultural, behavioural or whatever characteristics. Epf 17:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Scottish Gaelic profanity

I would appreciate your input on the AfD for this article. --MacRusgail 18:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

For me, I'd delete it out of spite - seeing "Keep: it can be fixed" from people who neither could nor will fix the article is like a red rag to a bull - but I don't have enough Gaelic to know anything about the subject, so it would be a bit two-faced of me to vote. Angus McLellan 19:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Angus, thank you for dropping a line. I will try to be of help, though you must note that I am still very ill, and consequently am not able to do anywhere near as much work here as I would like. Keep at me though. Fergananim 19:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that you were ill, and I'm sorry indeed to hear it. I wish you a speedy and full recovery. All the best ! Angus McLellan 20:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Dál Riata

Hey - just wanted you to know that, while I've not looked over all of the article yet, I may have some input, and/or some disagreements with some aspects of the article. I will probably edit the page when I've started looking into it again.. possibly adding some of the more Irish-based information (hopefully that will be appreciated) if I can, AND/OR I will put notes on the article's talk page. You have set a high standard regarding citations and.. basically every other aspect of the article, from what I can see.. therefore, any edits I can make, I hope to follow your example. But GREAT work on it anyway! By the way, I've put a comment on the talk page of the article regarding the renaming issue. Cheers - I know it will be a pleasure to read when I get to it. :) --Mal 03:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mal, much appreciated. I look forward to your additions, and hopefully we can get other people to weigh in ! Best regards. Angus McLellan 21:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Gray (poet)

I removed the poem as there was no indication that it was public domain, so it can not be included here in wikipedia. However, if you can prove that is was written over 80 years ago (and put that proof on the article's talk page), you can reinstate it to the article.--Esprit15d 23:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I believe that. Gray died in 1968. I don't think 80 years enters into it. AIUI it would be 50 (or 75) years after Gray's death (1968 -> 2019 or 2043) when the copyright expires. My view was (and is) that quoting a short poem, or an excerpt from one, constitutes fair use. In any case, the poem appears on the LE article linked to, so it's hardly of major importance. Angus McLellan 00:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Angus, where did you find the dates for Gray's birth and death? I couldn't find anything on the net at all. Well done. I also agree that short excerpts from significant works are legitimate fair use, which is why I put in the excerpt from Scotland. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ha ! Just lucky. Thanks for the great work on the page. It looks a lot better. The dates are in the list of all fellows (a big pdf) accessible from this page of The Royal Society of Edinburgh website. Unfortunately they only have obituaries from the 90s onwards, otherwise we'd have really been in luck. Angus McLellan 15:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well found indeed! I guess that his fellowship of the RSE should be added into the article. I'll leave that honour to you as the article originator and finder of the source. I see you've done it already, just shoot me. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No bother, but only half done. I'll update Royal Society of Edinburgh. A copy of Gray's Four and Forty was in my letter box today. Hurrah ! Angus McLellan 15:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Angus, I have nominated the article at DYK. Good luck. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. But isn't it a little white lie to say that *I* wrote the article ? After all, you did the work. Angus McLellan 13:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

{{cquote}}

Sorry about kinda breaking Scotland in the High Middle Ages. I'm used to using {{cquote}} in combinations with the <ref> system, and so I didn't expect any problem. I have contemplated converting the article before (not beforehand, just before), but did not because of the mind-numbing work it involved. Circeus 18:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah ! Mille mercis pour les infos ! Très interessant (oui, vous allez souffrir un peu, mon français n'est pas terrible). Moi, je trouve le <blockquote> plus simple. La système de Calgacus me semble très compliquée, mais je suppose qu'il a essayé les alternatives et, pour les raisons que lui semblaient bon, il avait choisi sa système a lui.

Pour remplacer le {{ref}} j'avais une version dans un bac à sable avec la système <ref> mais je viens de la suprimer. Elle n'etait pas bonne. Malheuresement, Calgacus a mis une {{ref}} dans les sous-titres d'une image et ça ne marche pas avec <ref>, aussi mal que le combinaison {{Cquote}} et {{ref}}. Donc, soit on restee avec la {{ref}}, soit on transfert la texte dans l'article. Mais ca m'a semblé de trop pour une chose pareille. Angus McLellan 19:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In many cases, my decisions about formatting were very arbitrary. Back in the day, I knew less about available formatting on wiki, and simply pinched things like quote boxes from other articles because I saw the effect they had; I deeply regret the {{ref|Citation}}/{{note|Citation}} system I used for referencing. I much prefer the <ref></ref> system, which I didn't know about at the time. I only employ the latter these days, except for articles that have already been a victim of {{ref|Citation}}/{{note|Citation}}. Regrets, - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

hi there

I dont know what kind of issue you have with me as I have always accepted other views on here. In most cases though I strongly argue for my opinions because I have such strong evidence to support these as truths. Enzedbrit for some reason has these ludicrous views in my opinion on peoples of the British Isles and on ethnic groups/origins in general, but it is his incessant insults and ignorance to users who oppose his controversial views (and prejudices) that has caused the problems I have with him. Cheers, Epf 00:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If it appears that I am picking on you in particular, then I apologise. That is not my intention. My "problem", which doesn't go as far as being "a problem" as such, is that you are too willing to make changes to articles without providing references. Does the fact that I mentioned you mean that nobody else does this ? Not at all, most people do, so it doesn't make you a villain. However, you could avoid endless arguments over Scotch-Irish people, or the Englishness of England, or the Celticness of Galicia, if you **and those who disagree with you** presented sources and references. It's not always easy to find academics making clear statements - who wants to be wrong next year ? - but we should try. Enzedbrit removed material from Celts today which clearly shouldn't have been removed. I haven't had occasion to put it back, but I will. I am an even-handed, petty grouch. Sometimes, it must be said, people ask for references for things that could easily be verified. I recall someone doing that on Scottish people as regards the claim that Scots names were "still common" (?) in various countries. Ten minutes with Google and the relevant online phone books would have done to convince, or not, the doubters. Anyway, if you had references on both sides of the debate, then you could compare their "verifiability" and "authority" and decide who, if anyone, was right. Sometimes you might even compromise because the viewpoints have more or less equal support. As regards the Anglo-Saxons article, if anyone is at fault, it's the people who created a big article on Anglo-Saxons without bothering to add references. Everyone knows, or should do, that it's the subject of debate in academia, and is going to be picked over. So why no references ? Clearly that's not your fault (and it isn't Enzedbrit's either). Please let me know if this doesn't address your concerns. You can send me an email, or leave a comment here, whichever is easier. Cheers ! Angus McLellan 00:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• I respect that and I see what your saying, I just needed some clarification on things. The articles frequently debated by me are hard to support evidence with because the nature of the debate is usually from population genetics studies. As you konw, it isnt the most developed or reliable area right now and so many of the studies on the same topics have come into conflict with each other. This begs one to ask: Who is really funding these studies ? What motivation, reasoning or bias is there to be found with them ? Why is it the media so quickly publishes the studies causing many people to jump to conclusions ? (even though the researchers themselves admit nothing from the studies is completely reliable or conclusive). This is the main reason why I question so much of the POV of users on ethnic group articles who think automatically all information should be altered or based upon these studies and not on long held historical or other evidence. Thanks for taking time out to discuss this, cheers mate, Epf 00:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As regards your questions, Capelli's study was funded by a variety of sources. I presume that part came from the BBC who wanted results to put in "Blood of the Vikings". The BBC probably got the results they wanted (a significant Viking component). This special case apart, academic and research monies will fund this sort of work in the UK, just as they would in other countries. So far as I can see, Capelli's speciality lies elsewhere, so he has no professional axe to grind. The only obvious bias in the study concerns the assumptions about starting conditions, which should give a systematic overstatement of migration in areas which form part of the "North Sea" world or which face the English Channel. You may want to check the latest such study, Töpf et al, "Tracing the Phylogeography of Human Populations in Britain Based on 4th–11th Century mtDNA Genotypes", in Molecular Biology and Evolution (2006), pp. 152–161 (the University library will surely have it). Three years have passed since Capelli's work and things will have moved on. I understand that Töpf's team have tried to get round the problem with unknown starting conditions, but I can't recall what it was they did.

And what do Capelli, Weale, Wilson (and Töpf) prove ? That's hard to say. If you believe that there were large-scale migrations *before* the Anglo-Saxons, e.g. the Celts, Bell Beaker culture, whatever, then they don't prove much, because you'll be obliged to reject their view of Britain before the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings as being inhabited by the descendants of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farmers as found in deepest, darkest Ireland and Wales. People who want a small-scale Anglo-Saxon migration can probably accomodate the studies without too much trouble. Weale can be dismissed without too much trouble and Capelli doesn't really support massive A-S migration. However, unless there's something seriously wrong with Capelli's study, it does seem to be beyond doubt that there was significant migration in the Viking Age. And if that was so, why not earlier too ? In short, I think that the findings of Weale and Capelli can be used to support almost any model, although sometimes it may not be easy. They may have used the best methods, and have provided first class results, but they failed to actually advance the debate very much. The results certainly didn't justify all the nonsense that appeared in the media. Angus McLellan 15:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed Angus, as your able to go into more detail about what I was arguing. I mean the limited sections of DNA tested alone is enough to prove that no decisive and complete conclusions can be made on the origins of any of the peoples studied. What you might find interesting that I am working on (in my spare time) is an article revealing the links between the pre-population genetics studies of Carleton S. Coon in the "Races" of Europe (1939) and the most recent findings in population genetics regarding similar populations. Many of the correlations between the results of Coon's work and modern studies are uncanny in my opinion, especially considering he collected most of his data solely based on physical appearance/characterisits. I will also check to see if Robarts here at U of T has that latest mtDNA study. Cheers, Epf 18:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

PROD: 80 members of the parliement who voted against Vichy France

I think it could be seen as an attack on the people who voted against the motion. I understand that it's an important event, but do we honestly need to know who did or didn't vote for it? --InShaneee 19:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The PROD tag has already been removed, and not by me, so I guess this is a non-issue now, unless you really want to see it gone. I don't think this is a good subject for an article, but I don't like lists in general. An article on the vote would be interesting, but this will never be that. I you have an RFD, I'd vote delete on the basis that it will never be anything more than unencyclopedic historic listcruft as it is. Let me know. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Lothair

The change was primarily from "II of Arles" to "II of Italy", but the secondary Lothar to Lothair change was important, too. The 1911 Britannica, the Columbia, Encarta, and the World Almanac (all designed for popular readership) use Lothair. Wikipedia also uses Lothair in all its articles (see Lothair). The old Cambridge Medieval History uses Lothar, as do most modern works it seems. Lothar is the German version of the name, Lothaire is the French, and Lotario is the Italian. I think the modern preference for Lothar is similar to the modern preference for Pippin over Pepin: it indicates the influence of German scholarship in these areas. I have even seen Lothaire in some works. Lothair, not being the correct form in any other language, is surely the proper English form, to be preferred in an encyclopaedic article. In scholarly works, the authors decide whether to use English or non-English forms for reasons known to them. I think the use of Clotaire of Chlothar or any other variant is a poor choice, but at least Wikipedia is consistent in it. I hope this justifies the change to you. Srnec 00:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)